Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 23STCV10868, Date: 2023-09-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV10868    Hearing Date: September 18, 2023    Dept: 51

Tentative Ruling

Judge Upinder S. Kalra, Department 51

HEARING DATE:    September 18, 2023                                       

CASE NAME:           TBF Financial I, LLC v. Juan M. Valencia, et al.

CASE NO.:                23STCV10868

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff TBF Financial I, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of September 13, 2023.

REQUESTED RELIEF:

1.     An order entering default judgment.

TENTATIVE RULING:

1.     Default Judgment is GRANTED.

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

On May 15, 2023, Plaintiff TBF Financial I, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Juan M Valencia, an individual, and Juan M. Valencia dba Transit Mix Concrete (“Defendants.”) The complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) Breach of Guaranty and (2) Breach of Contract. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants entered a written Equipment Finance Agreement, whereby Plaintiff would lease certain equipment to Defendant and Defendant would make an initial payment and 60 monthly payments later. However, Defendant has failed to make monthly payments since February 2020.

On July 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Request for Entry of Default.

On August 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed Default Judgment documents.

LEGAL STANDARD:

CCP § 585 permits entry of a judgment after a Defendant fails to timely answer following proper service of process. A party seeking judgment on the default by the Court must file a Request for Court Judgment, and provide: (1) a brief summary of the case; (2) declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested; (3) interest computations as necessary; (4) a memorandum of costs and disbursements; (5) a proposed form of judgment; (6) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought; (7) a dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment; (8) exhibits as necessary; and (9) a request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.)

Discussion

Proof of Service of Process: Proof of Substituted Service of Summons was filed on 5/31/2023.

Request for Entry of Default: CIV-100 was filed on 7/7/2023 and GRANTED.

Prove Up: Plaintiff seeks entry of judgment against Defendants in the amount shown below:

(1)       Demand of Complaint:           $33,819.80

(2)       Interest:                                   $20,716.56

(3)       Costs:                                      $722.80

(4)       Attorneys’ Fees:                      $1,404.59            

Total:                                                  $56,663.75

In support, the following documents have been submitted:

·       A brief summary of the case: The Declaration of Brett Boehm contains a brief summary of the case.

·       Declarations or other admissible evidence in support of the judgment requested: The Declaration of Brett Boehm was filed on 8/8/2023.

·       Interest computations as necessary: In paragraph 11 of the Boehm Declaration, the interest computations are based on 18% rate from February 19, 2020, until July 14, 2023, at $16.68 daily rate for 1242 days. 

·       Memorandum of costs and disbursements: The $722.80 is based on $435 for Clerk’s filing fees and $287.80 for Process server’s fees.

·       Proposed form of judgment: Form JUD-100 was filed on 8/8/2023.

·       Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought: Form CIV-110 was entered on 8/9/2023.

·       Dismissal of all parties against whom judgment is not sought or an application for separate judgment under CCP § 579, supported by a showing of grounds for each judgment: N/A

·       Exhibits as necessary: The Boehm Declaration has five different exhibits, which include the Agreement, Assignments, and Defendants’ Account Statement. 

·       Request for attorneys’ fees if allowed by statute or by the agreement of the parties. (CRC Rule 3.1800.): Plaintiff requests $1,404.59 based on the default schedule below. This is based on 3% of $23,819.70 (the excess over $10,000) added to $690.

The Attorney’s Fees calculated according to Local Rule 3.2 would follow the fee schedule as follows:

(A) From $0,01 to $ 1„000.00. 15% with a minimum of $75.00

(B) From $ 1,000.01 to $ 10,000.00, $ 150.00 plus 6% of the excess over $ 1,000.00

(C) From $ 10,000.01 to $50,000.00, $690.00 plus 3% of the excess over $ 10,000.00

(D) From $50,000.01 to $ 100,000.00, $ 1,890 plus 2% of the excess over $ 50,000.00

Conclusion:

            For the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:

Default Judgment is GRANTED.

Moving party is to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:             September 18, 2023                _______­­­­­­­­­­___________________________                                                                                                                        Upinder S. Kalra

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court